Pilots for Truth animation - What is it?

[ref]

Great, SLOB

[Panoply_Prefect]

Animation is here:

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3696130

PDF's are here:

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3696132

No need to go buying anything from PfT now... Most PDFs seem to be available on the NTSB homepage though.

/S

[ref]

Are you seeding? Quite big a file. Could it be compressed in some way?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Originally Posted by ref

Are you seeding? Quite big a file. Could it be compressed in some way?

I am seeding on a 10/10 mbit line. It is a huge file, its the full quality DVD-version. Im making a Divx-version aswell, I imagine it will be 1/3 the size. But it takes a while to encode it...

But I do understand why NTSB doesn't make it available online...

/S

[Panoply_Prefect]

Divx version (600 megs) available here:

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3696468

Oh, and feel free to post the link(s) on trutherboards as well.

/S

[Kent1]

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/tr...or911truth.org

Looks like Rob's site isn't doing very well.

Not in top 100,000
Reach:
3 mos. Change Down 53%
Traffic rank:
1wk avg. 734,248 3 mos avg. 774,099 3 mos change Down 302,763

Page views 3 mos change Down 15%

Whatever he's doing it sure isn't working.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Kent1

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/tr...or911truth.org

Looks like Rob's site isn't doing very well.

Not in top 100,000
Reach:
3 mos. Change Down 53%
Traffic rank:
1wk avg. 734,248 3 mos avg. 774,099 3 mos change Down 302,763

Page views 3 mos change Down 15%

Whatever he's doing it sure isn't working.

Flying topics must be too technical and boring. It is funny how his crack team of pilots are the only ones in the world unable to hit a target in the simulator. Are terrorist pilots better flyers than the PFT? Sorry guys.

[Calcas]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Flying topics must be too technical and boring. It is funny how his crack team of pilots are the only ones in the world unable to hit a target in the simulator. Are terrorist pilots better flyers than the PFT? Sorry guys.

When you're in a circle jerk with only a few of your buds, I'll bet the excitement wears off pretty quick.

[Bobert]

How do you REALLY feel Calcas?

[Calcas]

Originally Posted by Bobert

How do you REALLY feel Calcas?

I heard lyte was "busy" over there for awhile.

I guess he's spent too.

I wonder how the CIT sales are doing?

[Bobert]

I think that there is something to his recent silence although it would only be speculation as to why.
He has in the last few days though reappeared in the Pentagon section of LCF.
I do wonder though why they took off the presale info from the CIT website.
Where has Merc been?

[Calcas]

Originally Posted by Bobert

I think that there is something to his recent silence although it would only be speculation as to why.
He has in the last few days though reappeared in the Pentagon section of LCF.
I do wonder though why they took off the presale info from the CIT website.
Where has Merc been?

Merc is banned both here and there.

[JohnCrono]

Hi Slob,
in the list you posted I' don't see any animation related to United93, that PFT claims they got from NTSB.
What do you think about?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Originally Posted by JohnCrono

Hi Slob,
in the list you posted I' don't see any animation related to United93, that PFT claims they got from NTSB.
What do you think about?

Well, at the time I filed my FOIA I wasn't aware of a U93 animation, so my FOIA was only for the AA77-one.

However, filing a FOIA for any and all such animations should be a quick task - what took a bit of time for me was the postal handling, eg it took awhile for the package to reach Scandinavia. I Imagine a US based FOIA-filer would recieve theirs in a matter of two-three weeks.

I might file one later this summer, but right now Im swamped with important tasks such as family vacation and stuff...

Cheers,
SLOB

[JohnCrono]

OK Slob.

I've filed a FOIA request too and I've receveid just a week ago a letter from NTSB confirming the request and assigning FOIA request number.

I've requested all the documents and animations, specifically mentioning United 93 too.

When I'll get that, I'll put it online for downloading.

[chriswgood71]

I think you all are missing some points in the PFT message. What I got out of their site/data/animation was the following:

1) They tried to interpret the "raw" data the NTSB provided as best they could...the point is; Why did the NTSB not do a real investigation and try to piece together every single scrap of metal to figure out why things happened the way they did in all 4 incidents on 9/11? They claim on their site (NTSB) that the investigation was officially turned over to the FBI...Where is their NTSB equivalent investigation? Still ongoing? No. the FBI Pentbomm team has apparently been disbanded. Where is their report? Anyone with a link or more enlightenment on this would be greatly appreciated.

2) Aside from any official NTSB investigation or interpretation of data they "certify" as authentic, PFT has some questions about their attempts to interpret the data the NTSB should have investigated and interpreted in the first place...e.g: A. The flight path, magnetic north/true north bearing should have been more clear. Depending on which is used the flight path does not line up in one and may in the other...the point is where is the official interpretation of the data?

B. The altitude; There was apparently a barometric pressure adjustment during the flight ascent (when the change from local pressure to atmospheric pressure is made) which was not made again during descent of the plane in the "raw" data. The adjusted altitude would have placed the plane approximately 400 ft. higher than last shown. Again, where is the official report on this - subject to public scrutiny and defense?

C. The rate of descent. As I understand the contention of PFT - it is that rate of descent was too great to allow that big airplane to be in descent and then find itself in a low altitude flight path parallel to the ground as would seem to be indicated by the felled light poles and smoke trail in the pentagon video. It's like saying plane could rapidly descend at 10,000 ft/sec and then in a matter of a few seconds find itself low and parallel to the ground.

Anyway, beachnut I hope you can illuminate us all on these specific points rather than giving us a "non-specific to point" opinion and then point to simulations that may or may not reflect all the circumstances of the actual FDR data. As I understand it, those simulations you cite were to see if the turn and descent was possible...not including all the exact circumstances under which the descent was said to occur. Also not to mention the common sense questions they raise such as:

1. Why did Hani and crew not just fly straight down into the Pentagon when they first saw it...why go out of their way to fly a big circle over the nations the most powerful nation on earth's protected airspace and risk being shot down?

2. Why did all of the commercial pilots that had their planes taken over on 9/11 by these hijackers all give up their planes to some loudmouthed arab hijackers with box cutters? So they threaten there is a bomb on board...shouldn't at least one of the pilots not yielded their plane without notifying FAA of the hijacking? Or done more to not relinquish their plane so seemingly quickly and easily? Couldn't at least one or more of these (mostly military trained) pilots have put up more of a fight...or done a quick maneuver to cause them to lose their footing (seeing as they were buckled in and all, and the hijackers were not) and take back control of the situation? Shouldn't common sense dictate at least a little of what happened on 9/11? And not this incredible coincendence sense that seems to dominate "official" lines of explanation for things?

Anyway, I eagerly await anyone's reply. Thanks.

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by chriswgood71

Also not to mention the common sense questions they raise such as:

1. Why did Hani and crew not just fly straight down into the Pentagon when they first saw it...why go out of their way to fly a big circle over the nations the most powerful nation on earth's protected airspace and risk being shot down?

2. Why did all of the commercial pilots that had their planes taken over on 9/11 by these hijackers all give up their planes to some loudmouthed arab hijackers with box cutters? So they threaten there is a bomb on board...shouldn't at least one of the pilots not yielded their plane without notifying FAA of the hijacking? Or done more to not relinquish their plane so seemingly quickly and easily? Couldn't at least one or more of these (mostly military trained) pilots have put up more of a fight...or done a quick maneuver to cause them to lose their footing (seeing as they were buckled in and all, and the hijackers were not) and take back control of the situation? Shouldn't common sense dictate at least a little of what happened on 9/11? And not this incredible coincendence sense that seems to dominate "official" lines of explanation for things?

Anyway, I eagerly await anyone's reply. Thanks.

Common sense = ouch!

1. Dunno. Maybe Hani cocked up the co-ordinates and had to swing around to lose altitude. Maybe some disturbance on board with the passengers caused a distraction and they had to correct this. Maybe his fellow hijackers suddenly realised they were about to die also and tried to get him to abort. Who knows?

But ask the same question of your preferred conspiracy theory.

Why did the remote controlled/drone/fake passenger jet fly the route claimed and risk being shot down?

Or is the route faked? If so, why include such a large diversion from the path to the pentagon?

Reality and fantasy are both subject to the same questions. I suspect that neither of us has a definative answer.

2. Dunno. Maybe they believed that the bomb threat was real or should be taken seriously. Maybe the hijackers were able to take control and then kill the flight crew fast enough to prevent a mayday.

So, why should the conspirators choose a method of carrying out their evil plans which is going to raise questions about the pilots and the abilities of the hijackers? Why not make it watertight and slip in a mayday from the fake pilots (after all NORAD had stood down, right?) and pin the deed on some really big and beefy hijackers?

Do you think the NWO is just toying with you? Think they're just feeding some flawed scenario to you as entertainment as they watch you try to convince the world of the obvious illogicality of the 911 hijacks?

It's just common sense, right?

[apathoid]

Hi Chris, welcome to the forum.

Originally Posted by chriswgood71

1) They tried to interpret the "raw" data the NTSB provided as best they could...the point is; Why did the NTSB not do a real investigation and try to piece together every single scrap of metal to figure out why things happened the way they did in all 4 incidents on 9/11? They claim on their site (NTSB) that the investigation was officially turned over to the FBI...Where is their NTSB equivalent investigation? Still ongoing? No. the FBI Pentbomm team has apparently been disbanded. Where is their report? Anyone with a link or more enlightenment on this would be greatly appreciated.

It's not necessary to piece together an airplane when the cause of the crash(es) is blindingly obvious, especially when the cause(aircraft deliberately rammed into buildings) is not an airworthiness/safety issue. In the case of TWA 800, they almost had no choice but to start piecing it together because investigators didn't have the foggiest idea of why it blew up in mid-air shortly after takeoff.

It's also not the norm to rebuild every airplane that crashes because the cause can be determined through other, less-costly methods. I'd even go as far as to say that TWA 800 style reconstructions are quite rare.

The investigation was turned over to the FBI, because the FBI has jurisdiction over criminal investigations. If a wing fell off AA77 just prior to hitting, then I'd assume the NTSB would've investigated that.

Quote:

2) Aside from any official NTSB investigation or interpretation of data they "certify" as authentic, PFT has some questions about their attempts to interpret the data the NTSB should have investigated and interpreted in the first place...e.g: A. The flight path, magnetic north/true north bearing should have been more clear. Depending on which is used the flight path does not line up in one and may in the other...the point is where is the official interpretation of the data?

As was posted farther up, PFT was given a working copy of the animation which wasn't used in any official capacity. As far as the NTSBs official interperetation of the animation - I don't think it's normal for them to do that. Pick a crash, any crash - and see if you can find the animation AND an "official interpretation" of it. Good luck.

Why didn't the NTSB release one of their 500 page accident reports? Answered above.

Quote:

B. The altitude; There was apparently a barometric pressure adjustment during the flight ascent (when the change from local pressure to atmospheric pressure is made) which was not made again during descent of the plane in the "raw" data. The adjusted altitude would have placed the plane approximately 400 ft. higher than last shown. Again, where is the official report on this - subject to public scrutiny and defense?

"They" also adjusted it 260 ft high on takeoff. PA for Dulles was about 40' - but sure enough the animations starts at 300' which is the actual elevation of the airfield.

And are you talking about the animation or what actually happened? Hani did adjust the BARO knob on the way down. But pressure altitude is pressure altitude. It's always referenced to 29.92 regardless of the BARO setting. Also, if you look at the the CSV file, you'll see where Hani adjusted the knob and you'll also see how that had no effect on the pressure altitude. The CSV also shows the proper PA at Dulles, around 40'.

Why did the NTSB make several adjustments to the animation? I have no idea, but it wasn't to make AA77 look lower than it actually was(480' MSL). Look at it this way - if they did adjust it down - wouldn't they, you know, want to make it support the "Official story" instead of having it fly over at 500 feet?(Is PFT saying that it was actually at 1,000 feet? Thats lunacy.)

Quote:

C. The rate of descent. As I understand the contention of PFT - it is that rate of descent was too great to allow that big airplane to be in descent and then find itself in a low altitude flight path parallel to the ground as would seem to be indicated by the felled light poles and smoke trail in the pentagon video. It's like saying plane could rapidly descend at 10,000 ft/sec and then in a matter of a few seconds find itself low and parallel to the ground.

The official story does not suggest that the plane hit the Pentagon at a high rate of descent. If you are talking about the data at the end of the animation/CSV, its been covered here in-depth. Do a forum search for "FDR" or "Pressure altitude". Long story short, the data ends 2-5 seconds away from the Pentagon wall. The RoD cannot possibly be ascertained at impact.

Quote:

1. Why did Hani and crew not just fly straight down into the Pentagon when they first saw it...why go out of their way to fly a big circle over the nations the most powerful nation on earth's protected airspace and risk being shot down?

The aircraft was still at 7,000 ft as it approached the Pentagon(to put this altitude in perspective, 7000' is typically reached 20 miles from the airfield on descent). I don't know about you, but I think it'd be pretty stupid to do anything other than turn around and descend.

Please define "protected airspace". Are you saying that Hanjour flew AA77 through airspace which was off limits?
He didn't. The airspace directly above and around the Pentagon isn't restricted, other than it being Class B which means it's congested, that is, too many airplanes are operating in it - quite opposite of restricted!

See here:

Quote:

2. Why did all of the commercial pilots that had their planes taken over on 9/11 by these hijackers all give up their planes to some loudmouthed arab hijackers with box cutters? So they threaten there is a bomb on board...shouldn't at least one of the pilots not yielded their plane without notifying FAA of the hijacking? Or done more to not relinquish their plane so seemingly quickly and easily? Couldn't at least one or more of these (mostly military trained) pilots have put up more of a fight...or done a quick maneuver to cause them to lose their footing (seeing as they were buckled in and all, and the hijackers were not) and take back control of the situation? Shouldn't common sense dictate at least a little of what happened on 9/11? And not this incredible coincendence sense that seems to dominate "official" lines of explanation for things?

I'm quite offended by both the logic and what you're inferring here.

How do you know the pilots didn't fight?
How do you know that the hijackers were not well-trained in hand to hand combat and knife fighting?
How do you know they didn't rehearse their attacks ?
How much could the pilots have done from their seats to ward off the hijackers?

Have you ever sat in the cockpit of a 767 or 757? You can't stand up from your seat. You actually have to physically move the seat back and to the outboard side. It's still isn't the easiest thing in the world to get out of that seat. You have to swivel your body around to the inside, duck your head and standup, stepping back sideways....it's not the best place to be when someone is trying to kill you.

As far as notifying the FAA of the hijack. I'd say setting the ATC panel to 7500 would be impossible to do in less than 3 seconds. Probably impossible in any time frame, when someone is hell bent on slitting your throat.




Chris, I don't know if you're new to the whole AA77/FDR thing or if you just trust PFTs analysys. But there is an alternative viewpoint. Every one of PFTs claims has been addressed and re-addressed to the point of exhaustion. Please peruse some of these threads .


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=77910
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=79762
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=78744
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=77323
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=77938
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=77937
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=66047
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=77989
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=77939
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=77841
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=77046
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=76327
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=73961
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=71697

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by chriswgood71

1. Why did Hani and crew not just fly straight down into the Pentagon when they first saw it...why go out of their way to fly a big circle over the nations the most powerful nation on earth's protected airspace and risk being shot down?

Because they were too high up and would have missed it?

Originally Posted by chriswgood71

2. Why did all of the commercial pilots that had their planes taken over on 9/11 by these hijackers all give up their planes to some loudmouthed arab hijackers with box cutters?

The procedure on 9/11 was to comply with any hijackers.

[Calcas]

Originally Posted by Peephole

Because they were too high up and would have missed it?

The procedure on 9/11 was to comply with any hijackers.

Also, the movie "Flight 93" shows a pretty good interpretation of how it may have gone down. Slit the throat of a passenger or two. Get a flight attendant to gain cockpit access. Rush the cockpit and disable (kill?) both pilots before they can react.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by chriswgood71

1) They tried to interpret the "raw" data the NTSB provided as best they could...the point is; Why did the NTSB not do a real investigation and try to piece together every single scrap of metal to figure out why things happened the way they did in all 4 incidents on 9/11? They claim on their site (NTSB) that the investigation was officially turned over to the FBI...Where is their NTSB equivalent investigation? Still ongoing? No. the FBI Pentbomm team has apparently been disbanded. Where is their report? Anyone with a link or more enlightenment on this would be greatly appreciated.

It was handed to the FBI because it was a criminal investigation. The NTSB only investigates accidents. The NTSB thus only provides such expertise as the FBI asked for. Clearly the FBI did not require the NTSB to rebuild the aircraft in order to determine what happened to each. (After all, it was pretty straight forward what actually happened to each airframe).

Originally Posted by chriswgood71

C. The rate of descent. As I understand the contention of PFT - it is that rate of descent was too great to allow that big airplane to be in descent and then find itself in a low altitude flight path parallel to the ground as would seem to be indicated by the felled light poles and smoke trail in the pentagon video. It's like saying plane could rapidly descend at 10,000 ft/sec and then in a matter of a few seconds find itself low and parallel to the ground.

AA77 only descended at a rate of about 1900ft per minute, or 30 feet per second; well within the aircraft's design limits. It also did not level out right at ground level - it levelled out at 2,200ft, and gradually descended up until impact. It did not fly parallel to the ground for any length of time at all.

Originally Posted by chriswgood71

1. Why did Hani and crew not just fly straight down into the Pentagon when they first saw it...

Because they were too high. I find it laughable that people think the turn AA77 made was impossible, but expect the same pilot to nose-dive the Pentagon, which would be far more difficult. Controlling an airliner in a flat out dive would be next to impossible, and there would be a much higher risk of missing the target completely, as well as the potential risk of the airliner itself breaking apart during the dive.

Originally Posted by chriswgood71

why go out of their way to fly a big circle over the nations the most powerful nation on earth's protected airspace and risk being shot down?

None of the aircraft hijacked on 9/11 entered protected airspace at any point.

Originally Posted by chriswgood71

2. Why did all of the commercial pilots that had their planes taken over on 9/11 by these hijackers all give up their planes to some loudmouthed arab hijackers with box cutters?

Because they were dead.

Evidence that the hijackers were "loudmouthed"? The information available about them suggest most of them were quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by chriswgood71

So they threaten there is a bomb on board...shouldn't at least one of the pilots not yielded their plane without notifying FAA of the hijacking? Or done more to not relinquish their plane so seemingly quickly and easily?

It's quite hard to think when there's a knife in your throat. For what it's worth, the pilot of UA93 got off a "mayday" call before he was slaughtered.

Originally Posted by chriswgood71

Couldn't at least one or more of these (mostly military trained) pilots have put up more of a fight...or done a quick maneuver to cause them to lose their footing (seeing as they were buckled in and all, and the hijackers were not) and take back control of the situation?

Should this have happened before or after the hijackers announced their presence by sticking a knife in the pilots' throats?

Originally Posted by chriswgood71

Shouldn't common sense dictate at least a little of what happened on 9/11? And not this incredible coincendence sense that seems to dominate "official" lines of explanation for things?

Common sense dictates that people who have just been stabbed in the throat tend to be primarily concerned with the following:

1) Dying

-Gumboot

[jackchit]

Originally Posted by JAStewart

I believe it was recieved by a member called Undertow.

I think I can remember him stating that he had got it back in the LC days.

It was received by "snowygrouch" aka Callum Douglas from 911.co.uk and pretend pilots for truth.
I wanted to prove his gullability so I invented a story and fed it to him, Low and behold the "scoop" made front page news on prison planet without a shred of evidence.
This was the first time I had real doubts about the truth industry, they printed a story that I had completely made up and preached it as gospel.

Here is Mr Douglas, proudly posing with the fdr animation.

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by jackchit

I
I wanted to prove his gullability so I invented a story and fed it to him, Low and behold the "scoop" made front page news on prison planet without a shred of evidence.

You really do crave attention don't you?

[jackchit]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

You really do crave attention don't you?

Yes, thats why this happened months ago and this is the first time i've mentioned it.

[T.A.M.]

jackchit;

so now that you realize that the 9/11 truth movement is more about press and pennies, do you still believe the 9/11 Inside Job Conspiracy?

TAM

[jackchit]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

jackchit;

so now that you realize that the 9/11 truth movement is more about press and pennies, do you still believe the 9/11 Inside Job Conspiracy?

TAM

No, but i believe there was inside help.
My mind is open, this issue polarises opinion i want to stay in the middle not blinded by the conspiracies or the official version.

[T.A.M.]

so you think there were elements of "Allowing things to happen" (LIHOP), or elements that actually plotted the acts of 9/11 (which is in facts still Inside Job/MIHOP)? Sorry to press, just want clarification.

TAM

[jackchit]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

so you think there were elements of "Allowing things to happen" (LIHOP), or elements that actually plotted the acts of 9/11 (which is in facts still Inside Job/MIHOP)? Sorry to press, just want clarification.

TAM

LIHOP

[T.A.M.]

jackchit:

Thanks for answering my questions.

My personal view on the issues believes the official story, as a whole, but I think there was alot of cover-up. The difference in I and the CT, is that I believe the cover-up was to cover-up mistakes, not a plot to allow things to happen, or to make the attacks happen.

TAM

[Calcas]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

jackchit:

Thanks for answering my questions.

My personal view on the issues believes the official story, as a whole, but I think there was alot of cover-up. The difference in I and the CT, is that I believe the cover-up was to cover-up mistakes, not a plot to allow things to happen, or to make the attacks happen.

TAM

Bingo.

But, then again, ANYTIME something tragic like this happens there will be people scrambling around to cover up any mistakes or things that may have been overlooked.

I have served in the US Military and worked for the FAA. The art of CYA (cover your ass) is a daily occurance and as natural as breathing.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by chriswgood71

I think you all are missing some points in the PFT message. What I got out of their site/data/animation was the following:

1. Why did Hani and crew not just fly straight down into the Pentagon when they first saw it...why go out of their way to fly a big circle over the nations the most powerful nation on earth's protected airspace and risk being shot down?

2. Why did all of the commercial pilots that had their planes taken over on 9/11 by these hijackers all give up their planes to some loudmouthed arab hijackers with box cutters? So they threaten there is a bomb on board...shouldn't at least one of the pilots not yielded their plane without notifying FAA of the hijacking? Or done more to not relinquish their plane so seemingly quickly and easily? Couldn't at least one or more of these (mostly military trained) pilots have put up more of a fight...or done a quick maneuver to cause them to lose their footing (seeing as they were buckled in and all, and the hijackers were not) and take back control of the situation? Shouldn't common sense dictate at least a little of what happened on 9/11? And not this incredible coincendence sense that seems to dominate "official" lines of explanation for things?

Anyway, I eagerly await anyone's reply. Thanks.

PFT? Should be ILFT. But then who am I?

Singled out, when others do so much better.

1. Why did Hani pass up the straight in from 7000 feet 24 to 45 degree dive? Not one of us has ever been in a airliner that has done a 25 to 45 degree dive. Anyone? Okay, I lied, someone could of been, but they will have a story of a life time. Best angle of descent and living is about 10 degrees, 15 degrees for a short period. Why? Because planes go too fast when you point them at the ground and the plane will not correctly operate at supersonic speeds (airliners designed for subsonic flight). Now why did Hani not point and shoot from 7000 feet? You are asking why a trained pilot does something he never practiced? Are you nuts? The big slow turn was used to loose altitude, it took a few minutes to finish and them Hani lined up and went with a 6 to 4 degree attack descent, more in his bag of flying tricks. But the dive bomber approach was never practiced, why not try it on FS. Go ahead see if you can hit the Pentagon from 7000 feet with flight simulator. BTW, it is hard to see below you at angles of 25 to 45 degrees. There are many reasons why Hani does not do what our PFT make up, to make you think they have something. What angle would you pick to hit the Pentagon, an angle you have never practiced: or an angle you have flown? Not a thing that happen with flight 77 was hard for a kid off the street to do, let alone a pilot with some training.

2. They had to be killed. I think the key to 9/11 is killing the pilots without thinking about it. They had to kill the pilots, the pilots could render the planes as gliders in seconds, they had to kill the pilots in seconds or risk not having the planes. The pilots had to be dead, or they would have set the emergency codes on the transponders. The pilots were dead or they would have turned the transponders back on. If I was going to take a plane and be sure there was never a problem from the pilots, the guys in charge, I would kill them. The pilots had to be killed right away. If I was not dead, I would have disabled my plane if asked to leave the seat. It is my jet, no one is taking my jet from me. Kill me or face the glider pilot problem. Want to go fly? How long can you do something with warm blood flowing down from your neck? It is too bad pilots face forward and are strapped in. It would be so much better for attacks to be in a line backer stance and ready to fight off throat cutting terrorist head on. Next time you are driving and pick up a hitch hiker put them in the back seat and relax.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Originally Posted by JohnCrono

OK Slob.

I've filed a FOIA request too and I've receveid just a week ago a letter from NTSB confirming the request and assigning FOIA request number.

I've requested all the documents and animations, specifically mentioning United 93 too.

When I'll get that, I'll put it online for downloading.

Great to hear, post in this thread when you get it!

Oh, and Im off seeding the torrents - since no clients were any longer connected. Let me know in this thread if you want me to re-open, or if you want the files some other way.

Cheers,
SLOB

[Thunder]

Did the NTSB actually provide this animation or did they simply provide the data was turned into this animation?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by parky76

Did the NTSB actually provide this animation or did they simply provide the data was turned into this animation?

The NTSB did a working copy of 77 flight data. PFT added stupid comments.

The aircraft animation is not tied to the ground with accurate data. The animation is derived from FDR data, and not navigation data. The map is arbitrary placed under the plane. The pentagon is rotated 20 degrees in the wrong direction from the real headings of fligth 77. The headings are some of the most accurate data from the FDR (+-2 degrees). Navigation data is off 1500 to 3000 feet, and that is acceptable. PFT even decode the VOR data which shows flight 77 over 2800 feet from the Pentagon based on heading and VOR data. And that position is south of the CITGO station on course to hit the poles and the Pentagon. The not so truthful PFT make up stuff, and they appear to be challenged on the facts. Poor paranoid PFT lead by the censor nazi Paranoid Robert Balsamo.

The NTSB even said it was a working copy and therefore it has no value to make conclusions from. And since the PFT think 77 missed the Pentagon they need to stop using the FDR data. Don't you think?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Prisonplanet has just published a video with some guy going thru this animation, again. Some brit called Calum Douglas apparently. Doesnt seem to add anything new.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...estigation.htm

Cheers,
S

[lapman]

Does the PFT or anybody have a "working copy" of another crash that's dead-on accurate to use as a comparison?

[Anti-sophist]

The problem with this "Why didn't the NTSB conduct a 'real' investigation" nonsense is the fact that the NTSB is in possession of flight data that crashed into the pentagon. The external evidence that AA77 crashed into the pentagon is overwhelming. It'd be a complete and total waste of government resources to examine the FDR that crashed into the pentagon in order to determine IF it crashed into the pentagon.

The arguments that PFT brings up regarding the FDR is fundamentally flawed at every single level. Their analysis is based flawed methods, is often wrong, and is universally completely and totally superficial. It lacks a tremendous amount of rigor and commits -numerous- statistical fallacies of false precision and the like. They cherry pick data and combine it with numerous (incorrect) assumptions they can't back up. Their "justifications" are almost always either completely wrong or completely fallacious. They -often- make ridiculous assumptions and conclude there are contradictions in the data. The contradictions universally come from flawed assumptions.

I'll be happy to go through any and all of those issues in detail, again, with anyone who has the intellectual honesty to discuss the issues as opposed to push their silly agenda. PFT is about driving -agenda-. Their goal is talking points not science. They have short, terse (and almost always wrong, flawed, and oversimplified) 'retorts' to every valid scientific counter-argument. Their responses are not correct and do not hold up under scrutiny but they don't care. For them, it's about the appearance of validity more so then the validity of their arguments. They are playing to the crowd, only. It is their goal to win over "supporters" with scientific-sounding arguments. It's sophistry from top to bottom. It's psuedoscience, too.

[Henry62]

Hi guys,
I'm Henry62 from Italy and I'm a newby on JRef Forum.

I'm a friend of JohnCrono and Paolo Attivissimo and I'm the author of the articles about thermal cutting of steel and about WTC blueprints.

I want to say my "THANK YOU" for your kind words about my articles.

I'm a member of Italian Debunker "Undicisettembre Group"; I'm a ballistic expert and I was an artillery officer in Italian Army.

I have a technical background and I studied mechanical engineering.

I began studying 9/11 on 2002, and then I was consultant and guest during two tv transmissions about 9/11 attacks on Italian national broadcasting corporation RAI, channel 1 (the show was "Speciale TG1").


Now I'm studying "ups" in the 81 floor of WTC2, where we saw the melted metal.

According to the forum rules, I cannot post the link to the English section of my blog, but you can find it simply with Google researching "Henry62".

I hope I can contribute to our common effort for Truth.

Best wishes from Italy,
"ciao",
Enrico (Henry62)

[Henry62]

Error in posting - sorry!

How can I remove this post, please? Thanks.

[Henry62]

error in posting - sorry!

How can I remove this post, please? Thanks.